It's interesting this individual was able to debunk Evolution because DING DING DING he just couldn't see it happening reasonably. Sorry but monkeys writing Shakespeare has nothing to do with evolution or biologic science.

This writer basically conflated two separate ideas into one. Also, We don't have Defense Ministers in the US so this was either a Brit trying to sound American or a translation from another languageIn a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It's interesting this individual was able to debunk Evolution because DING DING DING he just couldn't see it happening reasonably. Sorry but monkeys writing Shakespeare has nothing to do with evolution or biologic science.

This writer basically conflated two separate ideas into one

If you dig a bit there is a link to an alleged CV for the person who wrote it. Claims he has a BS philosophy, makes him an expert in mathematics I'm sure, and he claims to have a PhD, but doesn't say what that is in. Also that page says the site is damaged from a crash in 2007 and will be restored shortly.

Of course Wiki offers a formal proof of the infinite number of monkeys. Yes, to our expectation the probability is low, but if time is infinite then the probability is one or certain. Neat thing about infinities and something very hard for anyone not trained in calculus to grasp.

Still we have not been able to find out whether gravity is due to the existence of one (or more) particles.

For some reason, particles which can be attributed or related to a certain or specific amount of mass are better explained than energy in its pure form, or matter which behaves in an energetic manner or exhibits some kind or type of energetic state.

Perhaps I am trying to explain or be implying something by means of making a reference to the possible existence of the so-called Higgs boson whose existence has generally been postulated by physicists?

Gravity is supposed to be a force which attracts and compresses mass. A large amount of mass within a certain perimeter or radius typically makes up either a white dwarf star, a neutron star or possibly a black hole.

The amount of mass in the Universe is constant, the Universe as an invisible medium is expanding (or inflating) on its own, making all the galaxies and galaxy clusters being part of it appear as moving apart from each other.

Still we are assuming that the Big Bang was the result of an inflation, or at least, the result of the initial Big Bang which created the Universe subsequently lead to an inflationary universe where also the notion of time plays a big role.

We should not however think of the Big Bang as an "explosion" in the regular form of way. Rather, the Big Bang is known to have stopped up for a while, but quite recently, at least in a cosmic perspective has "taken off" once again.

In addition, the more distant an object is from another in the Universe, the more quicker or speedier this "moving away from each other" process also appears to be.

Maybe we need yet another explanation from Albert Einstein's laws of general relativity in order to be able to explain these things any further? The shape of the Universe is thought by some to be flat, by others as being either positively or negatively curved.

If scientists were able to popularize their favorite stuff and make it more generally available, I could well be satisfied with any such explanation of given facts.

But it too soon bogs down and delves into the mathematical "nifty grifty".

Again, I will have to look up the subject of gravity using the Wiki/Wikipedia.

Anyway, in the center of the atom, there exists two different or separate particles having totally opposite properties.

Namely the proton and the electron. The proton has a positive charge and the electron is having a negative charge.

Because a proton weighs in at the same as some 1800 electrons, we tend to forget the importance of the negative charge for the electron.

Also a third particle, neutrally charged, which actually is slightly heavier than the proton also resides in the core most of the time together with the proton, while the electrons are supposed to be rapidly spinning around this center in separate shells. Two electrons at most in the innermost shell.

If we forget about time and possible other types of forces this time, we are currently left with the electromagnetic force, the weak (nuclear) force and the strong (nuclear) force. The two first of these three forces were mathematically combined or merged into one separate force quite a while ago.

The inclusion or merging (one way or the other) by the strong (nuclear) force into the two first forces was achieved back in 1987 as far as I know. At that time Steven Weinberg together with possibly another person as well received the Nobel Prize at that time for making this discovery.

There were two particles I believe which were found around that time which supported this theory. Not totally sure, but possibly these particles got the names of "W" and "X", respectively.

It's interesting this individual was able to debunk Evolution because DING DING DING he just couldn't see it happening reasonably. Sorry but monkeys writing Shakespeare has nothing to do with evolution or biologic science.

This writer basically conflated two separate ideas into one

If you dig a bit there is a link to an alleged CV for the person who wrote it. Claims he has a BS philosophy, makes him an expert in mathematics I'm sure, and he claims to have a PhD, but doesn't say what that is in. Also that page says the site is damaged from a crash in 2007 and will be restored shortly.

Of course Wiki offers a formal proof of the infinite number of monkeys. Yes, to our expectation the probability is low, but if time is infinite then the probability is one or certain. Neat thing about infinities and something very hard for anyone not trained in calculus to grasp.

As I said, you are right back to zero. I don't take posting here lightly. I don't take well to people just pronouncing that they are right and then not give any said proof to back it up. I am not a scientist. I rely on others who are scientist to back me up. The one who wrote that site is NOT alone in his belief. As a matter of FACT Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards dismantled YOUR argument in much the same way. Also countless others have slammed YOUR arguent to the ground in the same way. You are wrong.

There are laws for very large numbers. I really don't care if you think I don't understand calculus. I do. I don't care if you think that calculus answers your questions correctly. I does not.

There are laws for very large numbers. And that number given at the site is indeed a VERY LARGE number. So large it stands right next to zero so claose that YOU cannot tell the differance.

so large it stands next to zero? REeaalllyyy? again you talk of beliefs and not science. Dismantling a scientific proof is quite difficult. It usually takes more than a few lines and saying "See there it is, I cannot see another possible solution to a problem" as an answer. That is hardly proof positive that something is or isn't correct.

I'll point you to flat landers that still beieve that the earth is flat. they have followers. Are they correct? Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.

When you conflate to ideas into being one then you just confuse yourself into believing something that isn't proof but is an interesting philosophical argument. Math doesn't use philosophyIn a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

so large it stands next to zero? REeaalllyyy? again you talk of beliefs and not science. Dismantling a scientific proof is quite difficult. It usually takes more than a few lines and saying "See there it is, I cannot see another possible solution to a problem" as an answer. That is hardly proof positive that something is or isn't correct.

I'll point you to flat landers that still beieve that the earth is flat. they have followers. Are they correct? Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.

When you conflate to ideas into being one then you just confuse yourself into believing something that isn't proof but is an interesting philosophical argument. Math doesn't use philosophy

Whats a fact Jack is that them two numbers [zero and the one given at the site I posted] walk so close together that when they get up in the morn they get into the same pair of pants.

Guy, as opposed to EAORW (Everything is Absolute, there is Only Right or Wrong), I suppose.

Personally, I do accept there are some absolutes out there and there are certainly some actions which can be classified as Right or Wrong (or should be seen that way by everyone (or nearly everyone anyway).

But I do reject the view that EVERYTHING is Absolute, and that EVERY act or thought is either Right or Wrong.

I perceive the inclination to see all as absolute, all as either right or wrong, as an oversimplification of reality. Making things simple is a good starting point for infants and young children as they grow up and get socialized, but as they mature, it is critical that they learn the world is a more complicated place than that.

I sense you either disagree with this or are at the very least discomfited by the implied relativism embodied by this.

ID, it is clear that you do not understand Borel's law of large numbers as applied to random chance and infinity. Borel stated that as long as a probability exists and given an infinite number of attempts the event will occur! At least that is what the link you cited states.

ID, it is clear that you do not understand Borel's law of large numbers as applied to random chance and infinity. Borel stated that as long as a probability exists and given an infinite number of attempts the event will occur! At least that is what the link you cited states.

you could also do the mooWrapper project which is looking to crack secure coding. The project at current rates of work would take about 250 years to process all possible combinations. This isn't infinite.

Whats a fact Jack is that them two numbers [zero and the one given at the site I posted] walk so close together that when they get up in the morn they get into the same pair of pants.

Show some understanding of the math...

so 0.000000000000000000000001 is virtually identical to 0.999999999999999999999999? I'm betting math will tell me this are significantly different numbers. So if I were looking at a precision piece of equipment and it said the tolerances were +/- 0.000000000000001 thats not even close to 1 but it is a lot more than 0. You seem to forget your authors point about the magnitude of numbers.In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope